Two Congregations Force LGBT Debate on Evangelical Covenant Church

The capitulation to moral and theological relativism among those who used to be Biblical on moral issues is astounding. The younger generations of professing Christians are one of the main drivers of this abandonment.

Reading the article, I notice that one of the pastors is female. Just like in the UMC and ELCA, the march to accepting homosexuality and the like tends to involve ignoring Paul’s commands about women wielding authority in the church first. Snake theology, we might say—“Did God really say….?”

Also of interest here is one person’s comment that debating these things is something of a “white church” battle. Probably a bit of an overstatement—in African-American churches, there is an acceptance of adultery and divorce (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Raphael Warnock)—but nonetheless an interesting perspective.

In this case, like many others, the shifting social attitudes have exposed a weakness that was already there. What groups and ministries have to have in place before a major social values shift happens is at least two things:

• A strong view of the authority of Scripture
• A sound process for evaluating new challenges in a biblical way (i.e., application)

Of course a lot goes into those two things, and you can’t have the second without the first. But you can have the first without the second… often with a very different, but still an unbiblical, result.

From the article

The denomination, founded by Swedish immigrants in 1885, has long emphasized theological diversity and the importance of freedom in Christ. New members are taught that a lot of Scripture is open to interpretation and faithful Christians can differ on peripheral issues. Doctrines that are considered nonnegotiable in many Christian traditions—such as the proper way to baptize a new believer—are deemed open for reasonable disagreement in the ECC. The denomination seeks to “stand in the center” and allow a lot of leeway on everything else.

But more than 850 US congregations do not all agree on whether the theology of human sexuality is periphery or center. For many, the authority of Scripture is at stake.

[Bert Perry]

Reading the article, I notice that one of the pastors is female. Just like in the UMC and ELCA, the march to accepting homosexuality and the like tends to involve ignoring Paul’s commands about women wielding authority in the church first. Snake theology, we might say—“Did God really say….?”

Is this a “correlation does not equal causation” statement? In other words, are there other denominations / churches where having female elders has not led to the acceptance of homosexuality?

Tom, there probably are denominations and associations that have women pastors, but do not accept homosexual marriage—in fact, I know there are, because I was there as my daughter and son in law visited such a church last weekend. What I’m arguing is likelihood; if a church is willing to ignore Scripture regarding women pastors, they are simultaneously more likely to ignore Scripture regarding homosexuality.

I agree with Bert on this point (and hope his family does not attend that church). But I wonder why this is not an example of the infamous slippery-slope argument that so many criticize.

Yup. It appears that the slippery slope “fallacy” is more about the eye of the beholder than a widely applicable general principle. Is the concept sometimes misused? Of course. It would be hard to find any concept that is not misused. Is it valid? Observation tells us that it is exactly right in many cases. Should be we surprised? Isn’t that pretty much the way Scripture tells us to beware sin, because it starts small, but if unchecked, often leads us down the slippery path of destruction?

The slippery slope is a fallacy when you assume things are inevitable, when there is no midpoint between initial steps and disaster. For example, if you eat that first donut, you are bound to become a 300 lb Walmart shopper. It is however acceptable logic when it’s phrased as a likelihood; “if you keep on eating those donuts, your likelihood of obesity goes up”.

The difference is the “excluded middle”, here the possibility that I can eat donuts without getting to an overall surplus of calories. It’s not total abstinence from donuts, and it’s not getting a frequent buyer card at Dunkin.

In this case, the argument is expressed as a likelihood, so it passes rhetorically. The response from supporters of female pastors would be “well, this is a disputable matter, but we don’t believe that homosexuality is disputable.” So the pattern one would imagine is exactly what we see among the UMC and ELCA; one generation says female pastors are a disputable matter, the next generation extends the logic to homosexuality. We might say it would tend to be a slow rot.

Regarding my daughter & son-in-law, there was quite a bit of discussion of the matter, partially about the “female pastor” thing, and partially because she chose to dodge some really interesting points in the passage she chose.

But they do exist. There’s a section of the path between Illilouette Falls and Half Dome at Yosemite where right next to the path it’s a 45 degree slope for about 50 feet and then about it’s almost vertical for about 1,000 feet. The 50 feet is loose gravel with a very few small bushes. It’s a slippery slope.

When people assume that every change represents the beginning of a slippery slope, this thinking is flawed. Not every change is sinful. We cannot measure what is true by what is traditional, but rather by what is Biblical. Some change is for the better, some is neither better or worse (from a Biblical perspective), and some is clearly worse because is represents departure from Scripture. With that in mind, not every change is the first step down a slippery slope, but sinful compromises usually are. If the reason for change is to compromise with the world, the slippery slope has just begun.

If someone does not assume that the path is inevitable, then the slippery slope argument has good merit. Changing direction can happen, but is difficult and probably rare. I have never assumed EVERY change begins a slippery slope, but, sadly, many times that is what happens (even while insisting that you are not on a slippery slope). Bert’s comment about “snake theology” is correct. Questioning the validity/authority of one part of Scripture will lead to questioning others, especially under social pressure.

[Dan Miller]

But they do exist. There’s a section of the path between Illilouette Falls and Half Dome at Yosemite where right next to the path it’s a 45 degree slope for about 50 feet and then about it’s almost vertical for about 1,000 feet. The 50 feet is loose gravel with a very few small bushes. It’s a slippery slope.

With about an inch of ice on a large portion of my driveway, I do not need to go to Yosemite to find a slippery slope! Just sayin’.

OK, on the serious side, a slippery slope argument is valid if not only the statement is termed in terms of likelihood, but also if you get the likelihood reasonably right. For example, i could tell Wally that if he eats donuts, he’s more likely to become an axe murderer. Wally would be perfectly in line in saying “Perry, what on earth is your logic there?” There can be some things that are paradoxical, some things that are debateable, but you’ve at least got to posit some reasonable string of logic.

Tom, there probably are denominations and associations that have women pastors, but do not accept homosexual marriage—in fact, I know there are, because I was there as my daughter and son in law visited such a church last weekend. What I’m arguing is likelihood; if a church is willing to ignore Scripture regarding women pastors, they are simultaneously more likely to ignore Scripture regarding homosexuality.

Pentecostal denominations and the Wesleyans, both of which have had women pastors since their beginnings, are not reinterpreting or ignored Scripture regarding homosexuality and have stayed non-affirming of LGBTQ. Whereas non-denominational churches, RCA, CRC, American Baptists, and etc.. are examples of groups or who have several churches within their groups that have ordained women pastors/elders and are ignoring or reinterpreting Scripture to become LGBTQ affirming. While I see Bert’s observation among the non-denominational, RCA, CRC, American Baptists, the Pentecostals and the Wesleyans are large notable exceptions.